"Mr Blair said people would be refused asylum if they had been involved in terrorism" - which I suppose means people can look forwards to more checkboxes that say 'Are you a terrorist?' a lá the USA visa waiver forms, and the comedy Export Compliance Declaration that appears when you buy from Dell ('Is this computer equipment going to be used in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction?').

Or, given the country's current embracing of mass hysteria, 'Are you a Muslim?' will do. I know people who now travel London by taxi to avoid the harrassment encounted on public transport - fucking pathetic.

My own stance on such transfigurations into a Police State are well-known (give me bombings any day) - what shocked me was the fact that the weight of public opinion appears to be very much FOR this move (one which I'm sure is merely another step towards a Final Solution to terrorism...). Usually I can rely on the British to smack down Draconian moves - but not today.Deborah Ese, London, Dailymails: "Any person who does not agree with the British way of life and hates it people so much that they are prepared to maim and kill them should be deported without question".

Good idea. I propose we send questionnaires to everyone in Britain. We could even make it multiple-choice, so that even BNP voters could participate:

"1: You are unhappy with Western foreign policy. Do you:(a) Bomb London(b) Bury your head in the sand(c) Vote Tory

2: Please tick one box:(a) I HATE FREEDOM(b) I don't mind being ruled by a bunch of fascists, after all, it's for our own good"

Mostly (a)? Congratulations! You are a terrorist. Tony's Terrorist-Tackling Team will now deport you.

I spend a lot of time reading the moonbat drivel of the Islamofascist-hugging hard lefties and liberals but this takes the biscuit.

Any country run by sane people would expect its leaders "to throw out anyone who encourages terrorism" and would also like to see people "refused asylum if they had been involved in terrorism."

If the Muslim community weren't echoing the liberal/left canard about how Blair, not British Muslims were to blame, and instead accepted that their own people did it, and started to tackle the major issue of over 100,000 of their cohorts agreeing with their act, they might get sympathy and support, instead of harrassment.

Incidentally, when in the past 5 years have you posted anything about the amount of abuse UK Jews have been receiving? Whatever you may think of Sharon and Israel, Anglo-Jewry hasn't been killing Londoners in support of his policies, so why should they be attacked whilst liberal do-gooders like you stay silent?

And while we're on the subject, you should be more careful about misappropriating the term "Final Solution". That resulted in the deaths of 6,000,000 Jews and hundreds of thousands of other "undesirables". You cannot seriously believe that the British government would perpetrate something similar on the Muslim population. So your flippant use of the term is chillingly close to the methods of denigrating and belittling the Holocaust used by, among others, the BNP and your dear friends in the Muslim Association of Britain, who boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day. Oh and by the way, there is widespread Holocaust denial across the Arab world, which is all the more ironic as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and other Arab leaders actually visited the concentration camps with the Nazis to see how to deal with their Jews.

Sadly, your stance will indeed give you bombings any day and every day until you surrender completely or fight back hard. If you think Blair's moves are draconian, I suggest you check out the bombers' alternative of Shariah law. I would love to see your blog when one of your hands has been amputated for petty theft or smoking pot.

Allow me to guess your answers to your questionnaire.

1: You are unhappy with Western foreign policy. Do you:(b) Bury your head in the sand

2: Please tick one box:(b) I don't mind being ruled by a bunch of fascists, after all, it's for our own good" (these would be Islamofascists by the way)

Add the Tory and New Labour voters together, check the opinion polls, and accept that you are in the minority. One day your grandchildren might thank their stars you were. Otherwise, for the sake of consistency and to demonstrate your commitment to your beliefs, I think you should find a country that reflects your values, and go live there.

Those of us who value life enough to accept the stop-and-search of ethnic groups in proportion to their likelihood of committing crime and terror could do without apologists, appeasers and cowards living in our midst.

In the meantime, I invite you to visit http://www.freedmanslife.com - come and have a go if you think you're hard left enough ;)

I'm back, and I'm angry. Now taking all-comers. If you have a big fat slice of appeasement that deserves the freedmanslife treatment, send it in!

Apologies for the ambiguity; the Final Solution was specifically about the "Jewish problem" but was later extended to apply to other German non-Aryan groups such as the disabled. Millions of gypsies, homosexuals and Communists were also killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust, but were not part of the Final Solution as originally planned at the Wannsee Conference. I would not want to in any way denigrate or belittle this - it's a cheap shot to imply that I would - and shows your lack of research.

Thought readers might like to see how this debate is panning out back at Lee Gent's place...

Lee @ Fri 05 Aug 2005 21:24:08 BST

Hi, thanks for your invite - but I think I'd rather not encourage you.

Queen of the Spiders @ Fri 05 Aug 2005 21:42:16 BST

I read this with interst. But, lets not forget who invented the good ol' concentration camps, The brits. Remember the boar war? Yeah, the jolly old chaps slapped those pot smoking lefties into a big cage and did nasty things to them. I mean, all Hitler did was refine the process one step futhur and started gassing yee olde jews. The idiot when and did one of the nasties human attrocities in human history. then waht about the balkans? Thats *so* much better. They didnt even do the "Right Thing" and come up with some decent propaganda to give rise to public support, they just lost their marbles and went off killing a few hundred thousand people and burying them in the ground. Muslims too. Fucking christians :) Oh, lets not forget the tutsi's and hutu's... they were all god loving people right? Those 3million people are probably rather pissed right now. Well, they would be if they weren't dead. Whoops.

The problem isn't the new laws -- they make sense at a base level. They really do. But the world isnt simple. What IS a terrorist action? Does it count as me standing on a street corner with anti abortion signs and *terrorising* people by saying they are scum? I dont know, it might. You'll say "thats silly, it plainly isnt". Right, thats waht you say now. 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? Some nutter plokner government will abuse these laws. The laws will them promptly fuck us up in a way thats *SO* much worse. Same problem with ID cards.

So, while I think lee can sometimes come across as wrong, he is right. It's you with your backwards, reactionary *Facist* beliefs thats going to put the rest of us up shit creek without a paddle in 20 years time.

What we need is not laws to stop this problem right now, but to open a metaphorical can of whuppass to point out to people on all sides that:a) blowing shit up doesnt work (cf. IRA) -- espcially when you knobble civiliansb) The world doesnt hate you (cf. my ex)c) Really, we can all live together with our beliefs if we just try a little harder (cf any student halls)...

THank you , and good night.

Matt @ Fri 05 Aug 2005 22:28:00 BST

You say the British Government would never perpetrate something similar on the Muslim population such as the final solution. We are however the nation that brought the concept of concentration camps to the world (Boer War 1899-1902) and set about converting and enslaving entire African nations. It's been done before, it just depends who's in charge and how scared the general public are. At the moment alot of the population are extremely scared, and as such considerbly open to suggestion. Shit, why do you think the BNP are so popular in certain areas (ie. Stoke - no offence Nick).

Of course Government needs to take appropriate steps to tackle direct threats to its citizens. Draconian crack downs just aren't the answer. Before you accuse me of also being a tree hugging lefty with such ideas, let me inform you that I live in Birmingham. It's an example of social openness and PC gone mad. The council bloody banned Christmas a few years (eg the name, it was Wintervale instead) for fear of offending people. Obviously nobody was, and everyone Christan, Muslim, Jewish etc said it was a retarded thing to do.

It's all a question of balance go too far one way and you end up with a scared BNP voting public, go too far the other and its just so ridiculous every has to laugh at it. At the moment Blair and his ilk aren't doing that.

freedmanslife @ Fri 05 Aug 2005 22:45:17 BST

Good to see this is stimulating some debate. I think it's far-fetched to draw comparisons with the British Empire's methods 100+ years ago.

Firstly, the Boer concentration camps were nothing like the Nazi ones. The Brits rounded up hostile Afrikaaners and their families whilst the war was on, but did feed and clothe them. The Nazis rounded up Jews who presented no threat, starved and stripped them, then gassed them when they were too exhausted to work.

Secondly, the proposals made by Blair are not draconian. Rounding up all Muslims on suspicion of being supportive of terror, or not protesting enough against terror, and deporting them, would be draconian.

We have become used to somewhat porous borders, total free speech even when it incites hatred against or between UK citizens, freedom of movement without being searched or having our bags checked etc. Yet there are plenty of functioning democracies which have tighter border controls, more internal security checks, and a realistic approach to tackling the internal and external threats posed (Britain at the height of the Troubles, Israel for the past 57 years, Spain at the height of the ETA bombings, the USA post-9/11 etc). I don't see anyone worrying that they will turn into Nazi states.

I think the problem here is that the so-called independent media has surreptitiously moved to the left. This makes the debate appear a lot more polarised. I like to think of myself as a reasoned voice of the centre-right, but relatively people find me extreme. With the hard left view now aligning with that of what we used to think of as the liberal centre ground, it's not surprising that we see Blair as draconian.

You should put more faith in the British public to understand the nuances of the debate, rather than assume they will lurch to the far right, or that Blair is already there. Also the masses should learn to be more capable of critical analysis; something that I hope the blogging culture - and dialogues like we are having - are beginning to address.

The more points there are on the political spectrum, the less likely the herd is to rush to one end or the other. Sadly, I think that there has been a sweeping movement of everyone from the left of Blair onwards, to charge ever further leftwards, hence my scorn for the "tree-hugging lefty".

Queen of the Spiders @ Sat 06 Aug 2005 16:11:53 BST

"Firstly, the Boer concentration camps were nothing like the Nazi ones. The Brits rounded up hostile Afrikaaners and their families whilst the war was on, but did feed and clothe them. The Nazis rounded up Jews who presented no threat, starved and stripped them, then gassed them when they were too exhausted to work."But it was the brits who gave the world the concept. WE started it.

"Secondly, the proposals made by Blair are not draconian. Rounding up all Muslims on suspicion of being supportive of terror, or not protesting enough against terror, and deporting them, would be draconian."Oh how fucking naive. Really Fucking naieve. Thats *Exactly* what the law will be used for. It wont be muslims, it'll be people in general. Really. Fucking naive little shit.

"Yet there are plenty of functioning democracies which have tighter border controls, more internal security checks, and a realistic approach to tackling the internal and external threats posed (Britain at the height of the Troubles, Israel for the past 57 years, Spain at the height of the ETA bombings, the USA post-9/11 etc)."a) Britain did not have stupid fucking laws during the NI problems. It had sensible ones and responded with the correct actions. Seperate checkin lounges, etc. There was not a nuge resentment towards the irish. The IRA were a nasty peice of work. They learned to deal with it then, we can do the same now without new lawsb) THe US is not a functioning democracy. It's a dynasty. THe election was rigged, and the country was propaganda'd into a second term. The present administration keeps doing things with no knowledge of the public. I live here, and it's fucking insane. At times, it really does feel like apolice state.

"You should put more faith in the British public to understand the nuances of the debate,"Oh please. Again, Naive. By very definition "The majority of people are of average intelligence are below", and from that you can extrapolate that most people are naive. THe masses will be manipulated, turned, and abused as seen fit by the powers that be. Read 1984. Again. Grow up and stop sticking your head in the sand. Go read the papers. go read between the lines. Start ignoring the media -- ALL media. They all have a total agenda that is orthogonal to my well being. But the rest of the nation won't. They'll continue to read the Sun, The Daily Sport, and *oh sweet $deity* the daily facist mail.

We're fucked. You know it, I know it, Lee knows. Lets just realise that if blair gets his way we will be right royally screwed in the none to distance future.

freedmanslife @ Sun 07 Aug 2005 01:43:04 BST

Was planning on writing a detailed response, but the total lack of logic, the way you have wilfully or perhaps just thoughtlessly managed to miss the points I made, resorting to swearing and name-calling, terrible grammar and spelling, lead me to believe that you are certainly doing your bit to lower the average level of intelligence that you refer to. Any response would therefore be wasted on you.

Matt @ Sun 07 Aug 2005 06:10:32 BST

Ah the classic response of a man losing the battle.

How sad.

freedmanslife @ Sun 07 Aug 2005 10:21:32 BST

OK, I have time on my hands, so I will take the bait.

The Brits gave the world the expression "concentration camp". The method of forcing "undesirable" civilians into small living areas was long in use - the European ghetto was around for hundreds of years, the Americans corralled the Native Indians into small reservations, the Russians created the Pale of Settlement, and I'm sure there are more examples with some research. The point I am making is that the Nazis were unique in using them as a waystation for the total extermination of whole tracts of population. We didn't start THAT.

The shrill and unpleasant response to my point about what constitutes draconian behaviour was the main reason why I wasn't going to bother replying. If you really think that Blair is going to retain power and turn Britain into a Nazi state, and that I'm naive for not realising, I think you have some form of certifiable paranoia. As an openly practising Jew, and worse still, a staunch Zionist, I should be the first one to smell the whiff of the gas chamber, and flee to safer shores. It's the fear of having a government that panders to terror and your kind of paranoia that would make me more inclined to do so.

I didn't realise the British response to the Troubles included separate checkin lounges. It strikes me that if you think this is a reasoned response, then so would Muslim-only carriages on the Tube. Sorry, what was draconian again?! Also, our anti-terror legislation was first introduced in response to the IRA, so we did change the law to help tackle them.

You claim the US is not a functioning democracy. I assume from your rant about the unfairness of Bush winning a second term with a massively increased majority that you are a Democrat. Er, the Kennedy dynasty, anyone? Or with Hilary's potential candidature, what price a Clinton dynasty? Smacks of bitterness to me. Both sides played dirty in the election - that's the daftness of the American system, which encourages them to do so - the Republicans were just better at it.

Every government keeps doing things with no knowledge of the public. That's how representative democracies work. We elect them once every 4 or 5 years, have a few other points of democratic intervention, but largely have to trust them to run the place with our best interests at heart. It's not perfect but it's what we've got. You have 3 alternatives: become part of the government so you know what's going on; live in an anarchist state where there is no government; or live on a small island on your own so you are in charge.

"The majority of people are of average intelligence are below". I think your inability to form this sentence correctly proves your point entirely.

I actually agree with you - I think people are incapable of understanding the nuances of the debate. Certainly you appear to be. I read 1984 and treated it as a work of fiction, or perhaps Orwell's statement of discomfort at the manipulation of his beloved socialism by the Soviets into something more sinister.

I do read all media. I don't understand why I have to read ALL media then ignore ALL media. This seems to be a time-consuming and pointless task not unlike those that might be carried out by characters in 1984. Only one of us is backwards and reactionary, and I think you should concede that neither of us is fascist.

I take everything in, from as many sources as possible, then I draw conclusions for myself. Your hysterical conclusions are your right in a democracy, but your poor and swearword-filled attempts at debate convince me that giving you a vote once every 5 years is more than enough.

Matt - I would remind you that according to Lee, I am in the majority. I think that means I'm winning the battle...

My hand is in fact once again reaching for Sir Martin Gilbert's authoritative tome on World War II, which is where I got my information from. I have forwarded your comments to Sir Martin for his expert analysis, as I believe he still has his hand in the air.

Historical research is slightly more than reading one mans book. To even begin to contemplate the points you have made, up to thirty seperate sources from different publications must be sought. A balance between the different points must be reached, and your conclusions drawn. Simply saying "i've read what I consider to be one single authoritive tome" is just not good enough.

Spend six years on historical research, the combined writing of which must be well over 400,000 words (or four well sized PhD. theses), actually spend time reading different points of view, contemplate them, and come to your own conclusions, then we can talk on the same level. As it is at the moment, you've read some odds and sods, taken what you like, what fits with your point of view, and then hammered it as the authoritive text.

I have no disrespect for your argument, it is interesting and different to mine. That's good, debate is always welcome. Trolling someone's journal, linking to it on yours to try and get others to flame just isn't on.

Point on historical research taken. I did also Google it and looked at about 20 or 30 different pages, albeit not as authoritative as Sir Martin Gilbert (or you, probably), and they all made it fairly unambiguous that the Final Solution was a specific response to the Jewish Question. I really couldn't find anyone who thought the Final Solution was conceived to annihilate the millions of others that its tools eventually did, and would be interested if you could share your sources which counter this point.

As it happens, I had no intention of trolling/flaming or whatever (I'm quite new to serious blogging - I only just got to use the expression "hat tip" for the first time). A friend saw Lee's posting and felt I could do better justice to a response than he could - then there were the hysterical postings that followed from his friends, and one thing led to another... I cut and pasted it onto here because I'm lazy and it saved me a few days' worth of coming up with original material.

Incidentally, would you like to share your name and blog, or perhaps even make a guest appearance on a historical matter? I'm sure some of my readers might like to hear a reasoned voice from another part of the spectrum.